When passing _Decimal64 or _Decimal128 to a function via stack, how
should they be aligned? Currently, gcc aligns them at 4byte boundary.
Is this desirable?
H.J.
comments. This is common practice, and a good idea because bad
> commit messages are always a bummer, ChangeLog or not.
>
Libgcrypt includes ChangeLog entries in git commit messages:
http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=libgcrypt.git
In each patch, commit log starts with ChangeLog entries without leading
TABs followed by separator line with -- and then commit message. They
have a script to extract ChangeLog for release.
--
H.J.
uiltins
> (thus creating a new branch). It seems like there may be a missing
> "users/" needed someplace. But I am not at all confident that's
> correct. I'm a little suspicious of the push spec in my config.
>
> Can someone with strong git-fu give me any suggestions?
>
> Best regards,
> Bill
>
--
H.J.
+return strcpy (newname, name);
/* Copy over .comment section under the same name if present. Solaris
ld uses them to relax its checking of ELF gABI access rules for
COMDAT sections in objects produced by GCC. */
I'd like to backport it to GCC 9 if possible.
--
H.J.
elease 8.4 on Wednesday, March 4th.
>
I'd like to backport:
commit r10-6965-g577350603a657590c4b54a4a966cb49497e2514c
Author: H.J. Lu
Date: Mon Mar 2 03:08:57 2020 -0800
lto: Also copy .note.gnu.property section
When generating the separate file with LTO debug sections, we s
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:46 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 03:41:06AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 2:46 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > The second release candidate for GCC 8.4 is available from
> > >
> > &
xecution test
FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/wrapped_env.cc execution test
FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/wchar_t/wrapped_locale.cc execution test
Are they expected?
--
H.J.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 5:01 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 04:52:20AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > I saw these new failures on Fedora 31:
> >
> > FAIL: 22_locale/numpunct/members/char/3.cc execution test
> > FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_time/cha
failures as well as new passes, are also reported:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-March/072492.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-regression/2020-March/072495.html
--
H.J.
0522 T __addsf3
>
> So the size is ~0.5K.
>
> Why so large difference in libgcc and compiler_rt for the same functionality?
>
The size difference comes from soft-fp implementation, not from compiler
codegen. Does soft-fp have higher accuracy and more features?
--
H.J.
ation work).
>
> soft-fp is expected to be used on 32-bit and 64-bit systems for which a
> few kB code size is insignificant.
Size is very important for IA MCU. Would it be acceptable to update
soft-fp to optimize for size with
#ifdef __OPTIMIZE_SIZE__
#else
#endif
--
H.J.
assembler and linker. Assembler
should generate R_386_INDBR_GOT32 relocation, instead of R_386_GOT32
relocation, for “call/jmp *foo@GOT(%reg)”. GCC also needs to modify
to generate “call/jmp *foo@GOT” in non-PIC mode.
H.J.
se of
> this value.
This is a very old patch for DRAP unwind with stack alignment:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg00651.html
You can also grep drap_reg in dwarf2out.c.
--
H.J.
ything.
Combined tree is useful when the latest binutils is needed by GCC.
--
H.J.
suggests.
>
>
> Combined builds are very useful for doing Candian crosses. Though it might
> just because my build script has been doing a combined build now for 5 years.
> Also I noticed it was broken and ignored it as my script did not break, only
> when I did a native build did it break.
>
We should fix gcc/configure.ac.
--
H.J.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:13:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Al
Since ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs may be called outside of
ira-lives.c, it can't use the local variable, preferred_alternatives.
This patch adds an alternative_mask argument to
ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs.
OK for master and 5 branch if there are no regressions on Linux/x86-64?
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Since ira_implicitly_set_insn_hard_regs may be called outside of
>> ira-lives.c, it can't use the local variable, preferred_alternatives.
>> This patch
amic in link_info.dynamic after
> processing the command line, but I'm not sure if this is the right
> approach.
It is OK to use -static/-Bstatic/-non_shared with -shared and -pie.
I think you want --no-dynamic-linker.
--
H.J.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > For background on the static PIE model I'm working with, see the
>> > following post
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 02:19:34PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > > For background on the sta
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:56:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:42:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 0
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 09:30:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:56:00AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015
istory
> b. no git merges from feature branches.
One very frustrating thing for me is "git bisect" doesn't always
work. I think cherry-pick is OK, but probably not rebase nor merge.
Can we enforce that "git bisect" must work on official branches?
--
H.J.
my
local git repo.
--
H.J.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> One very frustrating thing for me is "git bisect" doesn't always
>> work. I think cherry-pick is OK, but probably not rebase nor merge.
>>
>> Can we e
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> up to date by "git merge origin/master". I never tried "git bisect"
>> on it since I know that commits on that branch aren't consecutive.
>
> bisect works
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> "git bisect good"/"git bisect bad" land my tree not on trunk when
>> they are used on commits from wide-int branch merge.
>
> Yes, that is bisect working a
void *p = __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data ();
...
}
3. 'exception' attribute
Use 'exception' instead of 'interrupt' for handlers intended to be
used for 'exception' (i.e. those that must pop 'ERROR_CODE' off the
stack before the 'IRET' instruction):
void
f () __attribute__ ((exception))
{
void *p = __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data ();
...
}
Any comments, suggestions?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
> hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler. The
> requirements are
>
> 1. Both interrupt and exception handlers must use the 'IRET'
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > The interrupt and exception handlers are called by x86 processors. X86
>> > hardware puts information on stack and calls the handler.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Matthew Fortune
wrote:
> H.J. Lu writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Fortune
>> wrote:
>> > H.J. Lu writes:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> > The interrupt and ex
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>> compiler should support:
>>
>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void)
>
> I got a feedback on the name of this builtin function. Since
&
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> To implement interrupt and exception handlers for x86 processors, a
>>> compiler should support:
>>>
>>> 1. void * __builtin_ia32_interrupt_data (void
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> To i
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:23 PM, John Criswell wrote:
> On 9/21/15 4:45 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, John Criswell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/15 12:27 PM, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Se
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu via cfe-dev"
>> To: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 11:27:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] RFC: Suppor
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 5:57:36 PM
>> Subject:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "H.J. Lu"
>> To: "Hal Finkel"
>> Cc: "GCC Development" , cfe-...@lists.llvm.org
>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 7:17:20 PM
>> Subject:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:41 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 21:45, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The main purpose of x86 interrupt attribute is to allow programmers
>> to write x86 interrupt/exception handlers in C WITHOUT assembly
>> stubs to avoid
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:44 AM, David Chisnall
wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 12:39, H.J. Lu via cfe-dev wrote:
>>
>> The center piece of my proposal is not to change how parameters
>> are passed in compiler. As for user experience, the feedbacks on
>> my proposal from
on has the correct signature in the
> hook adding the attribute. It should also be easy to check for the attribute
> at the beginning of ix86_function_arg et al, in order to handle these special
> cases.
>
Thanks for all feedbacks. Here is the updated spec.
--
H.J.
---
The interr
n
a bug report.
--
H.J.
$ gcc -fuse-ld=gold foo.c
> /usr/bin/ld.gold: error: unrecognised output emulation: armelf_linux_eabi
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
What do ld.bfd -V and ld.gold -V report? They should support the
same set of emulations.
--
H.J.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 25.10.2015 18:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15.10.2015 17:57, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
contains updated MPX spec.
--
H.J.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The x86-64 psABI has been updated to revision 248. Main changes are
>
> 1. Support Intel MPX.
> 2. Add a chapter for linker optimization.
> 3. Add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_GOTPCRELX and R_X86_64_REX_GOTPCRELX.
stack.
We are asking middle-end maintainers, is this a correct solution? If not,
what other approaches should we try?
--
H.J.
relocations.
Any comments and feedbacks?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the Intel386 psABI version 1.1 draft:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/intel386-psABI-20151120.pdf
>
> Main changes are
>
> 1. Add AVX-512 support.
> 2. Add linker optimization to com
s queued for
GCC 7.
--
H.J.
anch about once a week.
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
>> > What is the status of the x86 interrupt attribute patch?
>> >
>> > One of the last references I see is here and an at
include/plugin-api.h defines an ABI between linker and compiler,
which can be used to implement linker plug-in by any compilers.
I'd like to add GCC Runtime Library Exception to include/plugin-api.h
so that the linker plug-in can have non-GPL licenses.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
Below is my trivial do nothing main.c which I
> compile with and then use objdump to view the assembler source.
>
> I compiled x86_64-unknown-elf- using crosstool-ng, could that be a
> problem?
I fixed it on hjl/interrupt/gcc-5-branch branch. I will fix it for
hjl/interrupt/stage1 soon.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Wink Saville wrote:
>> I using hjl/interrupt/gcc-5-branch and my program is crashing when I
>> issue an INT xx. The problem appears to me to be that using
>> __attribute__ ((interrupt)) ca
9\]*,\[\\t
\]*%\[re\]?sp" } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "iret" { target ia32 } } } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "iretq" { target { ! ia32 } } } } */
^^^
The testcase scans for iretq if target isn't 32-bit.
--
H.J.
o that the linker plug-in can have non-GPL licenses.
>
> This is OK with me.
>
> -cary
Here is a patch. OK for trunk?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
From 3f8f62505774116d5de233ca36f60e3f8a840516 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:02:03 -0800
Subject: [PATCH
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 5:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
>>>> include/plugin-api.h defines an ABI between linker and compiler,
>>>> which can be used to implemen
d
a. A collection without member. Or
b. A collection with only empty collections.
4. No memory slot nor register should be used to pass or return an object of
empty collection.
The proposed Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs are at
https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/X86-psABI
Any comments?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
ry as well, which is probably not what we
> want.
I believe that POD for the purpose of layout doesn't change between
C++ standards.
> How do existing C++ compilers implement empty array members (an
> extension)? Does the type of such members affect whether a class is a
> standard-layout class?
>
> Florian
Are they "POD for the purpose of layout"? If yes, they are covered here.
--
H.J.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:36 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>> I am proposing to update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs to specify
>>> how to pass/return empty struct:
>>>
>>> 1
; The C++ standard does not define this.
GCC has
* Nonzero means that this class type is not POD for the purpose of layout
(as defined in the ABI). This is different from the language's POD. */
#define CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P(NODE) \
We can use this definition for ia32, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs.
--
H.J.
his class type is not POD for the purpose of layout
>>(as defined in the ABI). This is different from the language's POD. */
>> #define CLASSTYPE_NON_LAYOUT_POD_P(NODE) \
>>
>> We can use this definition for ia32, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs.
>
> It still has to be spelled out in non-GCC terms, IMHO.
Sure. Do you care to propose a wording for "POD for the purpose of layout"?
--
H.J.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * H. J. Lu:
>>
>>>> I tested GCC 5.3.1 and Clang 3.5.0.
>>>>
>>>> GCC Clang
>>>> s0 non-emptynon-empty
&g
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> The standard-layout POD is well defined:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B11#Modification_to
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 15:42, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 13:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, H.J. Lu
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 16:05, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> My understanding is
>>
>> A type that is standard-layout means that it orders and packs its
>> members in a way that is compatible with C.
>>
>> What is
t this class type is a non-standard-layout class. */
#define CLASSTYPE_NON_STD_LAYOUT
They aren't the same.
struct A { };
struct B { };
struct C : A, B { };
C is a standard-layout type, but not a standard-layout POD type.
--
H.J.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> A type is a stand
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2016 at 18:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 8 February 2016 at 17:58
extensions soon.
--
H.J.
//gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2016-02/msg00057.html
I was referring to program properties:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
--
H.J.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * H.J. Lu [2016-02-08 11:24:53 -0800]:
>> I created a mailing list to discuss Linux specific,.processor independent
>> modification and extension of generic System V Application Binary Interface:
>>
>> https:
ooks more like an ELF topic to me, not really ABI.
>
> Please discuss this on a GNU project list because it affects the
> entire GNU project.
>
gABI is ELF and affects all users, including GNU project, of gABI.
Linux-abi discusses Linux-specific extensions to gABI. It is for tools
like compilers, assembler, linker and run-time. It isn't appropriate
for any GNU project list.
--
H.J.
of layout and
a. A class type without member. Or
b. A class type with only members of empty class types.
4. No memory slot nor register should be used to pass or return an object
of empty record.
--
H.J.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 8 February 2016 at 19:23, Richard Smith wrote:
>> >> "POD for the purpo
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 8
GCC isn't compatible
with clang. My proposal will make GCC and clang compatible. It also
makes GCC and clang behave the same on both ia32 and x86-64.
--
H.J.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM,
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:46 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Richard Smith
&
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> Do we really need an 'empty type' special case?
>>>
>>> The x86_64 psABI already seems
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> >> I was referring to program properties:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/generic-abi/fyIXttIsYc8
>> >
>> > This looks mo
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Richard Smith
&
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:45 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:54 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 22:40, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> "empty type". An empty type is either an array of empty types or a
>> class type where every member is of empty type.
>
> Note that the term "empty type
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 11:53, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Since this isn't Plain Old Data (POD) for the purposes of layout, it
>> isn't covered by my proposal for psABI. I leave this to C++ ABI.
>
> You never
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
wrote:
> H.J,
>
> I think we are fragmenting with too many standards and mailing lists. This
> new discussion group and eventually the resulting standards, all might be
> put under LSB http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/lsb.shtm
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 13:58, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> "POD for the purpose of layout" is defined in the Itanium C++ ABI here:
>>
>> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#definitions
>
> Sorry,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 15:00, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> I intentionally exclude C++ specific features in my propose.
>
> Yet you use a definition from the Itanium C++ ABI which itself depends
> on multiple definitions in a par
ish to pass without registers
> as well?
>
>
Any suggestions on new wording, something like
1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class.
2. "empty type". An empty type is a type where it and all of its
subobjects are of class or array type.
Does it cover
struct A { };
struct B { };
struct C : A, B { };
--
H.J.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> Any suggestions on new wording, something like
>>
>> 1. "class type". A class type is a structure, union or C++ class.
>> 2. "empty type
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2016 07:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Suprateeka R Hegde
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> H.J,
>>>
>>> I think we are fragmenting with too many stand
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
wrote:
> On 11 February 2016 at 16:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> struct A {
>> static void foo (void) ();
>> static int xxx;
>> };
>
> What about it? It's an empty struct. (And it declares a function and
>
eed a gmail account
for any of those. There are quite a few non-gmail users. You don't have
to take my word for it. I can add your email to Linux-ABI group and you
can check it out yourself :-).
--
H.J.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
> wrote:
>> On 11 February 2016 at 16:31, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> struct A {
>>> static void foo (void) ();
>>> static int xxx;
>>> };
>>
>&
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Matthijs van Duin
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 11 February
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Smith
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 12,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Richard Sm
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:10 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Richard Sm
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Richard Sm
1 - 100 of 1206 matches
Mail list logo
